Intriguing concept Zaidi believes in

[rog]

The Dodgers in general and Farhan Zaidi in particular have been lauded for the versatility they have built into their roster.  Many of their players can play multiple positions, making it easier to rest players and easier to fill in at positions when one of baseball's many injuries hits.

Zaidi himself brings up another important result.  He says it fosters an attitude in players that instead of being "I am the shortstop" understands that "I am a member of this TEAM."

[sfgdood]

Interesting concept...I still believe defined roles gives you the best out of players and no stat or algorithm is going to change my mind

[rog]

I find your comment intriguing, Randy. A defined role may indeed allow a team to get the most out of its players and perhaps the team's best players should be utilized in that manner. It probably makes sense for at least some of the players on the roster to have versatility, since it gives the manager more options and protects the team against injuries.

You mention that you don't care what any stat or algorithm says. I could be wrong here, but to me Zaidi's statement spoke not to stats or algorithms but to team chemistry.

Whether they were constructed this way intentionally or not though, the Giants DO have plenty of players with versatility:

Alen Hanson has played six positions.

I believe Austin Slater was a shortstop at Stanford, and he has played four positions with the Giants.

Pablo Sandoval plays both corner infield positions.

Brandon Belt is a first baseman but has played both corner outfield positions.

Joe Panik was originally a shortstop and could likely play third as well.

Steven Duggar played many of his minor league games in right field and could almost certainly play left as well.

Abiatal Avelino is a middle infielder who is playing some third base and left field this winter in the Dominican Winter League (and batting .298).

Buster Posey plays catcher and first base.

Ryder Jones plays both corners.


I think the difference between the Dodgers and Giants in this area though may be illustrated by Cody Bellinger. Bellinger has the build of and came up as a first baseman, but he has the speed of a center fielder and has played all three outfield positions.

I think the Giants have a lot of versatility, but that the Dodgers have players who play BETTER with that versatility.

Here's something to consider with the Dodgers. They have been put together in a way that even with one of the game's most divisive players in Yasiel Puig, their team chemistry has seemingly stayed intact.

Now, we don't know what effect Zaidi himself has had on these factors. After all, Andrew Friedman remains the top dog. But we do know that when Zaidi has been around, both the Dodgers and the A's have been quite competitive. And it appears that Zaidi played a big role with the Dodgers.

You mentioned, Randy, that most of the Dodgers who have come through the Dodgers' farm system were drafted before Zaidi arrived, and that is certainly true in cases such as Bellinger. It should probably be noted though that the Dodgers' first draft choice when Zaidi arrived was Walker Buehler, who finished third in the Rookie of the Year voting this season. The two players who finished ahead of him, Ronald Acuna, Jr. and Juan Cruz, may be generational players.

It may be important to note as well that Buehler was drafted #24 overall, an area of the draft the Giants have performed poorly in. The only successful player I can think of from that area of the draft was Joe Panik.

It has been said of Buehler that he rarely takes a day off.

[rog]

To the extent that using players in multiple ways promotes team play and develops team chemistry, the Giants are no doubt looking for a way to promote and keep team chemistry without giving out so many big "loyalty" contracts. Zaidi seems cognicant of the importance of team chemistry, and despite all the Dodgers' spending hasn't given out a single nine-figure contract. He also helped take the Dodgers from a team threatening the $300 million payroll mark to a team that last season spent less than the Giants.

[Islandboagie]

I agree with both of you.

It's nice to have versatility, especially on the bench. But it's also nice to have a well rounded team that stays healthy and doesn't suck at certain position so much that players have to be shifted around to make up for that void. They don't play Buster at first because they like his versatility, they play him at first because Belt is often injured or stuck in some 2 month long slump. When Belt is actually hitting Posey gets needed days off, which keeps him well rested. Granted, it's nice that Posey can play first, but I'd much rather the Giants be in a position health and performance-wise to allow Buster to get a rest. And I'd like it if the Giants could find a left fielder that can hit better than our backup catcher so Belt can stay at first base where he belongs.

[rog]

They don't play Buster at first because they like his versatility, they play him at first because Belt is often injured or stuck in some 2 month long slump. When Belt is actually hitting Posey gets needed days off, which keeps him well rested. Granted, it's nice that Posey can play first, but I'd much rather the Giants be in a position health and performance-wise to allow Buster to get a rest. And I'd like it if the Giants could find a left fielder that can hit better than our backup catcher so Belt can stay at first base where he belongs.


Rog -- No question the Giants think of Buster as a catcher first and a first baseman second. (Yes, this is a case where first is second.) But there are two reasons the Giants like to play Buster at first base a fair amount of time even when Brandon Belt is healthy.

First, playing Buster as first base is kind of like half a day off. As a first basemen, both his physical involvement and his mental concentration are greatly reduced from the days he catches. Buster can get sort of a half day off, and the Giants can still keep his bat in the lineup.

Second, Brandon is a great candidate for platooning, which the Giants can do with Brandon and Nick Hundley because Buster can slide between the two positions -- catching with Brandon and playing first base with Nick.

Last season Brandon hit .196/.565 when a southpaw started the game. Nick hit .234/.692. Against lefties overall, Brandon hit .221/.628. Nick hit .280/.828. Even when Brandon is healthy, there are two advantages -- and one disadvantage -- when the Ginats start Nick against southpaws instead of Brandon:

The two advantages are that the Giants have better hitting with Nick, and they give Buster that figurative half day off. The disadvantage is that the Giants lose defense at both positions.

Bottom line, the Giants were able to give Brandon some rest, give Buster some rest, and improve their offense -- while giving up some defense. Worst case, that was a draw, which is a pretty good result when the Giants take Buster from behind the plate.

Whether Brandon is healthy or not, as Posey gets older, the Giants trying to cut Buster's starts behind the plate. Here are his catching starts, season by season. I prorated 2010 because he was called up two months into the season, and I prorated 2011 and last season due to injury.

2010 -- 113

2011 -- 123

2012 -- 111

2013 -- 119

2014 -- 109

2015 -- 103

2016 -- 122

2017 -- 96

2018 -- 106


It is ironic that the two seasons Buster started the most games behind the plate were 2011, when Brandon has his fewest plate appearances and in 2016, when Brandon has his highest number of plate appearances. As long as the Giants have a decent backup catcher, there is plenty of opportunity to rest Buster completely and to give him those half days off.

Last season the NL West was loaded with southpaw starters, and the Giants faced left-handers in a full 40% of their games. Brandon started 34% of his games against southpaws, so the Giants platooned him at least a bit. The ideal game for Brandon to sit is when the opposing starter is a southpaw and the Giants' starters is a fly ball pitcher.

Incidentally, until 2017 Brandon hit fairly well against southpaws. There was less reason to platoon him. The past two seasons though, he has been a platoon player, regardless of whether he was utilized in that manner or not.

You're right too that as with just about any player, when Brandon is cold, he's also a good platoon candidate, as in sitting on the bench until he breaks out of his slump. One thing he does come rain or shine with his bat is to play good defense. If he's not the best defensive first baseman in the game (and there are a lot of good ones), he's close.

Brandon's future is in part related to Joey Bart's entrance into the minor leagues. Until that time, the Giants need either Buster or a good replacement. Once Joey arrives, I see little reason the Giants need Brandon.

Here is a factor with Brandon that I hadn't though of. I knew that each off-season, as his partial no-trade contract is written, he gets to choose 10 teams to whom he can't be traded. But what I should have thought of and hadn't is that by choosing the 10 teams most likely to need him, he could almost make himself non-tradeable. Certainly no rebuilding team needs him, and the many teams with excellent first basemen don't need him either. If he picks his 10 teams strategically, he can make himself almost untradeable, unless the deal is a salary dump by both teams.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4946/intriguing-concept-zaidi-believes#ixzz5YypbwHsg

[klaiggeb]

I love versatility, but I want, no, as a manager, I DEMAND most of my starting 8 be ready to play where they play best.

During the course of a game I'd like them to be able to adjust to other positions if needed, but I DON'T like what LA did with Kiki, and Taylor and the others.

Let them play where they play best.

[rog]

I DON'T like what LA did with Kiki, and Taylor and the others.

Let them play where they play best.


Rog -- I understand what you're saying here, but it ignores one very important factor. A team's best lineup varies from day to day due to matchups and injuries. The best (most important) place for a player to play today may not be the best place for him to play tomorrow.

By the way, even in the old days, there has been a positive correlation between a manager's success and his using platoons.

Four years ago Randy was very strong on re-signing Pablo. Even when he was overweight and having fielding problems, Pablo was almost always the Giants' best third baseman -- against right-handers. At the end, he wasn't very good against southpaws, and he continued declining after he left the Giants.

Despite our questions about him, Brandon Belt is still a pretty good two-way first baseman. No question Buster Posey's best position is catcher. But often against southpaws and because he needs breaks from catching, Buster needs to play first base so that a right-handed hitting catcher can start more or less in Brandon's spot. The combination of two right-handed hitters against the southpaw and a chance to rest Buster from behind the plate means that on that particular day, Buster's best position ISN'T catcher.

If Buster isn't a team player, he will want to play catcher every game. If he is a team player, he realizes he can best help the team on occasion by playing first base.

Farhan points not only to versatility being an important factor to cover up for injuries and other factors, but that he likes the versatility because it gets players thinking like team players. One good thing about Farhan is that while he likely hasn't played baseball above the high school level, he seems to understand the importance of factors such as scouting, teamwork and chemistry.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4946/intriguing-concept-zaidi-believes#ixzz5a1EC58Xf

[klaiggeb]

I haven't ignored that at all, Rog. And in fact, I said so. Here's the quote. "During the course of a game I'd like them to be able to adjust to other positions if needed, but I DON'T like what LA did with Kiki, and Taylor and the others."

That obviously implies injuries, which I didn't feel I needed to say.

[rog]

"During the course of a game I'd like them to be able to adjust to other positions if needed, but I DON'T like what LA did with Kiki, and Taylor and the others."

That obviously implies injuries, which I didn't feel I needed to say.


Rog -- That type of flexibility is important, and even the Giants have a fair amount of it, with the skill level of the depth being the primary issues, not the mere existence of it. But here are two differences I see:

. First, injuries and the need to platoon mean that players need to have versatility that can be used in the starting lineup as well as with in-game decisions.

. Second, I think that Farhan may be on to something here when he says that if a guy knows a certain position is his, his focus can become more individual and less team oriented. It may be subtle, but a player may say to himself "I'm the shortstop of this team," rather than "I'm a member of this team, and we all work together."

Can there be danger in moving a player around rather than his having a set position he can get used to? I think there can be. But I think the teamwork and flexibility it promotes often outweighs that danger.

In a way, it's kind of like the opener. With the top starters, there is little need to use an opener. That aided Blake Snell in winning the Cy Young Award. Not that is SHOULD matter, but I suspect the voters gave him more credence as a starter than they would have if an opener had preceded him in his "starts." The Rays used the opener on days when they felt it would help the team.

Likewise a star wouldn't be as likely to be used in multiple positions. Brandon Crawford, for instance, is easily the best Giant as the position on the field that requires the most physical gifts. It wouldn't make sense for him to be moved all around. But it makes sense for Buster Posey to play first base sometimes.

The Dodgers have many players who are capable of playing reasonably well at a variety of positions. As time goes on, the Giants likely will too.

Those who look at baseball (and the world, for that matter) as black and white are missing the majority of things that are various shades of gray.

[klaiggeb]

If teams are ONLY going to have 4 players on the bench, those guys MUST be able to play multiple positions.

MUST.

That's a fact.

That's reality of today's ridiculous, pitchers only go 5 inning games.

Teach them to pitch when they haven't got their best stuff.

TEACH them to go deeper into to games and then LET them!

Stop going to the pen each time something goes awry.

But no.

Everyone, save Randy and I and a few others, think today's game is better.

It's not.

[sfgdood]

When you try to change something so that it will appeal to a broader audience, you basically are giving the finger to your loyal base. The game itself is still enjoyable just because the game is in general still played under the same parameters. I just think the excess analytics have turned following the game closely into more of a math class nowadays...the writers and the tv broadcasters are joining in too which makes following the game a lot less enjoyable to purists like Boly and me.

[rog]

Teach them to pitch when they haven't got their best stuff.

TEACH them to go deeper into to games and then LET them!

Stop going to the pen each time something goes awry.


Rog -- Let's look at these three points.

I agree with teaching pitchers to pitch when they don't have their best stuff. The problem is that with today's fine hitters, that's a really tough thing to learn.

I agree with teaching at least some of the starters to go deeper into the game. But again, the hitters are good enough to usually fare well the third time through the lineup. I would say that Max Scherzer may be the best today the third time through, yet batters have hit 27 points higher the second time through the order and 28 points higher the third time through the order than they hit the first time through. The fourth time through, they hit 57 points higher.

As for not going to the bullpen every time something goes awry, sometimes managers don't. The problem when they don't can be that a tiring starter doesn't usually pitch nearly as well as a fresh reliever. This season the Giants' starters gave up a .782 OPS the third time through the order. Their relievers gave up a .691 OPS the first time through.

If things are going awry, the starters are almost certainly giving up an OPS HIGHER than .782. The manager doesn't have to bring in the reliever, and sometimes he doesn't. But the likelihood is that the reliever will pitch better than the starter is.

If that is true, why WOULDN'T the manager bring in the reliever in most situations? Doesn't he want to limit the opponents' scoring?


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4946/intriguing-concept-zaidi-believes#ixzz5a8CqXzjz

[rog]

the tv broadcasters are joining in too which makes following the game a lot less enjoyable to purists like Boly and me.


Rog -- If analytics have improved the game -- and there is little evidence to the contrary -- getting less joy out of following the game sounds somewhat closed-minded.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4946/intriguing-concept-zaidi-believes?page=1#ixzz5a8GCNVvb

[sfgdood]

No need to fix what wasn't broken

[rog]

I hate to admit it, but I use a flip phone. I had a smart phone, but it kept slipping out of my pocket at work.

Now, my flip phone isn't broken. Neither the concept nor the phone itself. But that doesn't mean the smart phone isn't better for most people.

My flip phone wasn't broken, but there are hundreds of millions who are happy that the phone makers fixed it before it was. Heck, my land line isn't broken either.

I have mentioned this before, but there is a management concept that says if it ain't broken, break it. The idea is that if your company doesn't make its product better, someone else will, gaining a competitive advantage. I think the truth usually lies somewhere in between, depending on the circumstance, but saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it may be somewhat reactionary -- and not always the very best plan.